Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Removal by Kazemita1

Kazemita1, the Guardian article says "Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes" ([1]), for this reason I added that "Critics of the group in recent years (such as experts, various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW, and the governments of the United States and France ) describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes.". What I added is represented by the source. Why did you remove it? ([2]) Barca (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

You could fix it by making it look like the Guardian source. Precisely speaking, you can change the part that says "Those who criticize the group refer to it as "a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran"" to "Those who criticize the group and many who quit from the group refer to it as "a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran"". --Kazemita1 (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I did fix it to read like the Guardian source. Why did you revert it? Barca (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

You did not. You mixed up sentences and sources together. Vandermonde had explained to you that you should be careful with this.Kazemita1 (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Vanamonde93: Kazemita reverted my edit saying that I'm mixing up sentences, but my intention is to expand an existing sentence in the article with a source from Guardian (the Guardian article is talking about the same thing as the claim I edited):

Source from Guardian:

"Critics and many of those who have left the group in recent years describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes, condemned to die out at the obscure base in Albania because of its enforced celibacy rules." ([3])

The claim I edited:

"Critics of the group in recent years (such as experts, various scholarly works, media outlets, HRW, and the governments of the United States and France ) describe it as a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran and many cult-like attributes.".

Is this not a valid edit? Here is the edit that was reverted by Kazemita (I had removed some info at the bottom by mistake which is unrelated to this edit) ([4]). Thanks. Barca (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: your proposed wording is far too close to the source, and borders on a copyright violation. As I've explained on this page previously, both people who add content and those who object to it need to be better about finding paraphrasing that doesn't alter the meaning of the source, while being sufficiently removed from the specific phrasing. Even stylistically, the sentence is poor; the bit about lack of support outside Iran probably belongs elsewhere in the article, for instance. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

References
References

do self revert

@EmilCioran1195: please do self revert the edit which is not verified by any sources and admin reverted it.Saff V. (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Me being an admin should have no bearing on reverting the unsourced addition by the IP, which was restored by EmilCioran1195 in violation of this article's restriction, and using an automated edit summary only. But I get the sense that EmilCioran1195 is heading toward a topic or at least an article ban, if they continue to be that unresponsive. My involved opinion is that EmilCioran1195's revert may be re-reverted by anyone (although I'm not going to do so), and that, if they revert again, I will ask another admin to apply the IRANPOL restrictions to them, which seem due, anyway. El_C 17:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Info is sourced (even though it really doesn't need to be). A quick Google Books or Google Scholar search will reveal longstanding Soviet support for the MeK over several decades. Why on earth would you want to deny/hide this? EmilCioran1195 (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. Source it, then — do not restore the unsourced content and do not refer us to google. And definitely do not cast aspersions. El_C 05:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It's mentioned in practically every source cited in the bibliography. Why delete it, if you know it is correct? Or, if you don't know if it's correct or not, why not carry out the 60 seconds of research required to verify it's correct, before deleting it?

Is that how Wikipedia works? You delete everything whether you know it's correct or not?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about with regards to "casting aspersions". Bizarre. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Too many bad faith assumptions on your part, EmilCioran1195. Why on earth would you want to deny/hide this? — is casting aspersions. I do not want to deny or hide anything. I want that items to be sourced, like every-other-item-alongside-it. What is bizarre is that you failed to do so the first time.

Is that how Wikipedia works? You delete everything whether you know it's correct or not? — I did not know it was correct. I did know it was unsourced. Thank you for finally sourcing it. But you should have done it after I instructed the IP against introducing unsourced items, instead of reverting the addition without a source. That reflected poorly on you. El_C 08:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, in regards to your edit summary here: Soviet support for MeK over the decades is so well documented and such common knowledge that I am surprised El C deleted it twice from the infobox. source added. First, that is factually incorrect I removed (not deleted) the addition one time, not twice. Second, it may be common knowledge to people from Iran, but I'm not from Iran. El_C 08:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please pay attention to this, the page is under IRANPOL restrictions which demanded the involved user is not allowed to revert the reverted edit until the consequence will be gained. it was the first point. Secondly, As WP:UNSOURCED asked, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.. It is your responsibility to prepare RSes for cited material, All in all, please revert your edit or support it by inerting other sources, not academia.Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Why extrajudicial killings

The 1988 execution has been described as extrajudicial killings while it was done based of order of Khomeini, the highest political positions in Iran and according to this source the fatwa was performed by a three-man committee be established, comprising a Shari’a judge, the prosecutor general or his assistant prosecutor, and a representative from the ministry of intelligence in each province.Any idea? Saff V. (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Copy right violation

It seems that the article suffer from copy vio. While I picked up copied material form this source, I wonder if you take a look at them. Regards!--Saff V. (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 17:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No source

@BarcrMac: Please support your edit by inserting RS, Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Article size and organization

As I've said before, I don't intend to get INVOLVED with respect to content here; but I think I need to make a few obvious general points. First, the article is way too long. 50kb of prose is a good target; 60-70kb is not a disaster; 106kb is indicative of a serious need for pruning and/or spinning off subsidiary articles. Second, it's an organizational nightmare. The ideology section, for instance, has so many overlapping sections ("current" overlaps with "after the revolution", and the three topic-specific sections overlap with each of the earlier ones). The "Designation as X" sections are logically a part of "perception". Scholarly perception should form the basis for the entire article, and should not normally have a section to itself unless there's enough material to actually write about the historiography of the MEK (I see no evidence for that at present). I could go on; but the basis of the problem is that supporters and detractors alike have just stuffed this full of "X said Y about the MEK", which doesn't make for a coherent narrative at all. At the risk of sounding cynical, a lack of clarity in the prose doesn't help either POV, so the lot of you ought to be working on this issue. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to clean up some overlapping sections. Barca (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The violation of EmilCioran1195

It seems that EmilCioran1195 violated the restriction of the page, at first he added the group's ideology to the infobox, it was reverted by me, then he reverted it for the second time.@El C: I wonder if you check the situation.Thanks!Saff V. (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

please refer to me what "violation" of any "restriction" (policy?) I have made. Secondly, explain why the BBC is wrong/inappropriate in applying the designation cited. Best regards, - EmilCioran1195 (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

additional sources: New York Review of Books[5], HuffPo[6], Council of Foreign Relations[7], The Guardian[8], teleSur [9] EmilCioran1195 (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ervand Abramanian, The Iranian Mojahedin, (Page 145)

Sussan Siavoshi, Montazeri: The Life and Thought of Iran's Revolutionary Ayatollah, (p. 80): "In 1975, a group [MeK} within the organization rejected religion and declared themselves Marxist-Leninists". 2017, Cambridge University Press. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Baktiari, Bahman. Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies; Villanova, Pa. Vol. 13, Iss. 1, (Fall 1989). The leftist challenge: The mojahedin-e khalq and the tudeh party. "The Mojahedin wanted the Islamic Revolution to help them establish an egalitarian society through the fusion of Marxism and Islam"[10]

The page restrictions are the top of the page. Please adhere to them. That said, I have always tried to subscribe to the notion that reverting due solely to "no consensus" is a problem. That is why I keep asking for substantive objections. El_C 17:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

EmilCioran1195, the MEK's ideology has changed through the years, see Ideology, a section that consists of many sources. Also in another BBC article, "Since the 1970s, its rhetoric has changed from Islamist to secular; from socialist to capitalist; from pro-Iranian-revolution to anti-Iranian-revolution; from pro-Saddam to pro-American; from violent to peaceful." So please do not include this without a talk page discussion first. Alex-h (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

The case is not that simple. See Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran/Archive 7#Marxism as ideology. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

EmilCioran1195 - you have ignored the comments here. The MEK ideology is not a simple case, so will remove for now until this is better determined. Barca (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Removing sourced content

@EmilCioran1195:, why did you pick up well-sourced material just by mentioning "restore more neutral POV", please provide the substantive objections that admin reminded you! Saff V. (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Mass reverts by Kazemita1

Kazemita1 - you are continuing mass reverting many edits in the article, even without respecting the long-standing text or giving any reasoning - ([11]) ([12]) ( [13]) ([14]) etc. @El C: this is allowed ? Barca (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree with particular reverts, you can always revert back. Please provide substantive explanations of why you did so, here, on the article talk page. El_C 18:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@BarcrMac: I see most of your recent edits, which ignited the recent edit edit wars, to be clear violation of recent restrictions. Note that you need to build consensus when making challenging edits. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 did not respect some of the long-standing text, even though I tried to discuss some of these points with him here. Now an IP has restored Kazemita1's edits which are not the long-standing text in the article ([15]). I will adhere to the long-standing version of the article, and we can discuss here the points that Kazemita1 is edit-warring about.

For example, I will remove this "According to Michael Axworthy, the attack "fitted with Masud Rajavi's earlier declaration of armed resistance". because of Vanamonde's point about Article size and organization "full of "X said Y about the MEK", which doesn't make for a coherent narrative at all."

Also the sentence "Those who criticize the group refer to it as "a shadowy outfit with little support inside Iran" in the lead section can be mixed with the previous sentence which is already about criticisms, and the thing about "support inside Iran" is already in the lead - "a decision that was viewed as treason by the vast majority of Iranians and that destroyed the MEK's appeal in its homeland.[56]" (which already has POV problems).

Also the sentence "and "continued to conduct limited terrorist attacks in Iran for years"" in the lead section is POV since the MEK attacks on the IRI are already in the next sentences - "it was involved, alongside Saddam Hussain, in Operation Mersad,[58][59] Operation Forty Stars, and the 1991 nationwide uprisings.[60][61][50]" and "According to Sandra Mackey, the MEK responded by targeting key Iranian official figures for assassination: they bombed the Prime Minister's office, attacked low-ranking civil servants and members of the Revolutionary Guards, along with ordinary citizens who supported the new government.[47] The MEK "have been careful to demonstrate their reluctance to resort to violence" and mention that violence is imposed on them.[48]"

Also the sentence "The book is about the 1988 massacres of political prisoners in Iran, and explains that about 30,000 people were executed, with the majority being MEK members" is descriptive of what Rajavi's book is about, which Kazemita1 removed. The description of the book seems relative to this article.

Barca (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@El C: sorry for bothering you, it is the obvious violation of the page's restriction. The later edits of Barca included disputed material belongs to edit war, He just mentioned his opinion and with any consequences edited the article (1, 2, 3,4), actually, revert edits!Please leave a comment, Thanks!--Saff V. (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

For choosing to perpetuate the edit war (revert revert of revert) BarcrMac is also blocked for 60 hours. El_C 14:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Not in the source and too many reverts

@Kazemita1: you put the article that "Many famous pro-MEK politicians have declared receiving money from the group." ([16]). I reverted ([17]) putting in the edit summary that the BBC article does not say the MEK paid the politicians (which is what you have added to the article). The BBC article says that "Many get paid. Of those who have declared their earnings, the going rate for a pro-MEK speech seems to be $20,000 (£12,500) for 10 minutes.", so this is not the same as the MEK paying them. You still put this back in the article ([18]). This you should have discussed here first because the article has revert restrictions, and also what you are adding is not represented by the source. Barca (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Who else would have paid those politicians for speaking pro MEK?! Here is another quote from the source to prove the point:

"Some supporters are paid, others see the MEK through the prism of Iran - they will just support anything that offers hope of change there. Many are well motivated but some are naive."

Anyways, I found two other sources (independent.co.uk and the guardian) that explicitly state MEK paying former American politicians:

the MEK continues to pay former U.S. officials for their time

the MeK, which operates under a set of front groups, writes very large cheques to those speaking at their events. Estimates are in the range of $30,000 to $50,000 per speech. Bolton is estimated to have received upwards of $180,000 to speak at multiple events for MeK. His recent financial disclosure shows that he was paid $40,000 for one speech at an MeK event last year.

--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Last but not least, another confirmation in WP:RSN here that the BBC source does say who pays the pro-MEK politicians.Kazemita1 (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 - The Guardian sources you have provided do not say that "Many famous pro-MEK politicians have declared receiving money from the group" (neither does the WP:RSN discussion here). Your conclusion "Who else would have paid those politicians for speaking pro MEK?!" ([19]) is original research. There is also the dispute that not all of those who speak on behalf of the MEK get paid. This is a sensitive claim, and this one sentence in the lead is POV. Will rewrite to what the source claims and put this in the body where it can be given some context. Thank you. Barca (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

In my inquiry in WP:RSN I specifically asked the contributors to comment on my edit (that you are disputing). Since their verdict is on my side, I suggest you continue the discussion with them on this topic as I am starting to doubt your English skills. (assuming good faith that is)Kazemita1 (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

But the "verdict" is no "on your side" at WP:RSN. The BBC source say "Many get paid. Of those who have declared their earnings, the going rate for a pro-MEK speech seems to be $20,000 (£12,500) for 10 minutes. But then many other prominent MEK supporters act without payment." ([20]) So, some get paid, some don't, and it is not clear if payment always comes from MEK, or MEK supporters, etc. If we are to add this, then it should start in the body where it can be explained. I suggest you add this there in a neutral way (saying that some get paid, but some do not). Barca (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, I suggest you discuss it with the un-involved contributors in WP:RSN. My inquiry is clear and so is the verdict. You can also consult an English-speaking editor as it seems you are having difficulty reading English text.--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody at WP:RSN said you should include this in the lead of the article and revert like you did here ([21]) removing the neutrality. The information has been added and with some neutrality, so please stop reverting making it un-neutral. Barca (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Brother, in WP:RSN they commented on my edit in which I had added the content in the lead..--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Kazemita1, if you want to find other sources for this claim, it's fine; but the BBC source is only good enough for saying that the politicians get paid, not for saying that the MEK pays them. That conclusion is original research, if based solely on the BBC source. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:Even though BBC does say MEK pays those politicians (as confirmed here in the reliable source noticeboard) here are two other sources that support the claim that MEK pays politicians:

the MEK continues to pay former U.S. officials for their time

the MeK, which operates under a set of front groups, writes very large cheques to those speaking at their events. Estimates are in the range of $30,000 to $50,000 per speech. Bolton is estimated to have received upwards of $180,000 to speak at multiple events for MeK. His recent financial disclosure shows that he was paid $40,000 for one speech at an MeK event last year.

Please, kindly let me know if you are still not convinced the claim passes verifiability threshold. Kazemita1 (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, those sources support the content in question. You need to reach consensus on whether they constitute due weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on "seemed"

Kazemita1 - You added this "but it "seemed" as part of an MEK campaign including a bombing in Qom following the assassination of the governor of Evin prison, the killing of IRP radical Hasan Ayat and an assassination attempt on Ali Khamenei was presenting the speech at Abuzar Mosque." ([22]) This problematical because you are giving too much emphasis in a contentious article on something that "seemed", but was not confirmed. Barca (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

First of all, I did not add it to the article. It was there for a long time until you removed it a few days ago. All I did was to use direct quote for the word "seemed" so that it is closer to the source. Secondly, we are balancing the above statement regarding who was possibly behind this attack with what follows next, i.e. with two statements that oppose the firs one:

According to Kenneth Katzman, "there has been much speculation among academics and observers that these bombings may have actually been planned by senior IRP leaders, to rid themselves of rivals within the IRP". According to Ervand Abrahamian, "whatever the truth, the Islamic Republic used the incident to wage war on the Left opposition in general and the Mojahedin in particular". According to the U.S department of state, the bombing was carried out by the MEK.

Besides, the source that used the word "seemed" is written by an academic person not related to the dispute and is published by Oxford University Press. Therefore, in light of the fact that this was part of the longstanding text, I am putting it back to the article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Katzman makes an assertion that there has been speculation within academics, and Abrahamian makes makes an assertion that "the Islamic Republic used the incident to wage war on the Left opposition in general and the Mojahedin in particular", so it's not the same. You are also repeatedly reaching your own consensus and reverting, I think you were warned not to do this.([23]). Barca (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The sanctions are not related to the long-standing version of the article that you tried to remove. They are related to the newly added pieces. I highly suggest you respect the long-standing rule. Also, I am yet to hear why you disagree with the second piece even though it is from a reliable source.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The long-standing version does not include this text, so you should not revert as you did ([24]). I don't know what you mean about "the second piece". Restoring to the long-standing version because this gives too much emphasis in a contentious article on something that "seemed", but was not confirmed. Barca (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The admin for this page (El_C) built a law which was unanimously accepted by all active users at the time. The law says that if a text stays in the article for more than two weeks, it counts as long standing. Not to mention you have not stated the reason for your disapproval. The source is pretty much as reliable as you can get. (Oxford University Press).--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Vanamonde93:. BarcaMac removed a piece of text I had included in the article from a reliable source (Oxford University Press). His excuse is that there is too much emphasis on "seemed". The text reads as follows. Please, advise:

According to Michael Axworthy, the attack "fitted with Masud Rajavi's earlier declaration of armed resistance".

As a side-note, the sources are divided on this issue. For example US department of State clearly finds MEK behind this bombing while Ervand Abrahamian does not. My proposal was to just state what the sources say.--Kazemita1 (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I did present a reason for disapproval. We cannot give too much emphasis in a contentious article on matters based on "seemed", "if", and not facts. Also, the long standing version is 1 month, not two weeks. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People%27s_Mujahedin_of_Iran&oldid=922243555#Defining_longstanding_text_for_this_article Barca (talk) 13:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You are right about the 1 month rule brother. As for your concern on not emphasizing on "seemed" I am proposing a compromise. That we only include one of the two pieces I originally added to the article, i.e. only this sentence:

According to Michael Axworthy, the attack "fitted with Masud Rajavi's earlier declaration of armed resistance".

Please, bear in mind that the other two sources, i.e. Ervand Abrahamian and Keneth Katzman are also using "iffy" words such as "whatever the truth" or things like that. I guess what I am trying to say is that nobody (on either sides) is quite sure what happened. Think about my proposal and let me know.Kazemita1 (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have access to the source, so no wording suggestions from me. That said, a few unrelated points; fighting over which version is in the article while you work out a compromise version here is silly. The version of the text Kazemita supports is quite incomprehensible to me. And in a situation where reliable sources are unsure as to what happened, describing that uncertainly isn't just not a problem, it is required, per WP:DUE. Focus your energies on finding a compromise wording, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Kazemita1 - these sentences talk about two different things, so I don't understand your "compromise" of adding one and removing the other. Also they don't form part of the long-standing text, so why do you keep adding them back into the article without solving things here first? Barca (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I advise to take a look at admin's comments. "Barca is incorrect in their understanding of WP:DUE, specifically about situations where sources are uncertain about what happened.". Essentially, we should add more sources; exactly the opposite of what you are doing.--Kazemita1 (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a distortion of what I said. I specifically said that excluding sources because they are unsure of what happened is inappropriate. Content may be excluded for several other reasons; indeed, as I said before, all of you ought to be looking for ways to trim this article, not to bloat it further. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 edit warring again, what a surprise. Ypatch (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 - you are continuing to add this without reaching any agreement here first ([25] ) ([26] ). You first said that this should be in the article because it belonged to the long-standing text, and then when you see this is not so, you add the text in the article on your own decision even though this is still being discussed here. I am in agreement that the article should not be bloated, specially with guesses that don't really mean anything else besides a guess. Barca (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• It is a claim stated by the reliable Author in the reliable Academin source, on the other hand Vanamonde93 said before " if the author says that in their own voice, it's reliable", so it was mentioned in the article as a claim, not fact (it seemed ...). what is wrong with this well sourced content ?Saff V. (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the source or the content. No reason has yet been mentioned against inclusion of this piece by users. The size issue applies to all the text that Barca is trying to add as well.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1: Intersting!what has been the debate over?--Saff V. (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Apology & inquiry

@Vanamonde93: @El C:. First of all, let me start with the fact that I am sorry for what I did a few days ago. To show good faith, I restored the article to the version that was supported by 3 editors who were "on the other side of the isle". Secondly, I want to ask both of you (mostly Vanamonde) about one of his previous statements:

"in a situation where reliable sources are unsure as to what happened, describing that uncertainly isn't just not a problem, it is required, per WP:DUE"

To give you a background, the situation Vanamonde is referring to is this section of the article where sources are divided about who actually was behind the bombing. It appears I might have misinterpreted Vanamonde's statement which was partially the reason why the whole edit warring started. Therefore, I am asking in the form of a yes or no question this time. Is it due to add the following statement to the "Hafte Tir bombing" section of the article:

According to Michael Axworthy, the attack "fitted with Masud Rajavi's earlier declaration of armed resistance".

I appreciate your response. p.s. The source for this statement is rock solid (Oxford University Press) and the statement can be checked here.Kazemita1 (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This misunderstanding, such as it is, is probably based on a misunderstanding of what El C and I are trying to do here. We are acting in an admin capacity; we are not opining on content. What that means is; I might tell you that source X is an acceptable one for statement Y (because that is, essentially, determining whether a given edit is policy-compliant, which is what admins are supposed to do); I might tell you that excluding "biased" sources is inappropriate (because that is explaining policy); I might tell you that the article is badly organized, because similar material is being split up into different sections (that is a matter of common sense). I am not going to opine on whether a specific sentence constitutes due weight, because that would make me WP:INVOLVED. Thus; above, I said that one of the reasons that Barca was using to exclude a given source was inappropriate. That doesn't mean all reasons are inappropriate (or appropriate). What constitutes due weight is something for you to decide, by RfC if there's no agreement here. And to reiterate; the article is, at the moment, way too long, and confusingly written. I suggest all of you focus on addressing those problems, rather than adding more critical or adulatory material to the page. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kazemita1:this sentence "fitted with Masud Rajavi's earlier declaration of armed resistance" was removed because of weight issues! Am I right? As well as I am of the same mind about not to ask admin make comment on all occasions, building consequence should be done by involved users.Saff V. (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree @Vanamonde93:. Whether you like it or not, if you comment on select text inclusions then you are already involved! For example, you imply that the article is too large and one should avoid adding new text. However, you do not comment on other inclusions such as this repetitive pushing. Barca keeps pushing the text about the number of people killed in prison, even though it is mentioned a few lines above. Bear in mind that I was not against inclusion of the book publication; just against excessive details that happen to be repetitive. In my case the text I was going to add (linking MEK to Haft Tir bombing) was NOT repetitive.Kazemita1 (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Nuclear scientist

As before, this material was picked up from the page by Stefka and it was told him, such edit needs discussing but unfortunately the opened discussion (see Possible violation of restrictions) did not reach any specific conclusion on removing this material.He removed material by reason that it is not supported by sources while I am against however I edited it to be supported bysource. @El C: is n't this edit a violation of page restrictions? How many times do we have to discuss a topic that was argued just some months ago (for instance see "Excessive information a marriage/divorce" in this page)?Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a bold edit to me. If you wish to contest it, you are free to do so, of course. El_C 12:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Stefka explained their edits here and in their edit summary saying they have removed repeated information (which is at par with what was requested about the 30,000 death toll). Saff, there is a section Stefka created about other repeated content about the nuclear scientists. How about taking any issues to that section? Ypatch (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Saff, in your edit, you added that

• "Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents motivated by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations."

I cannot find that in the sources, though. Can you point out where in the sources this is supported? Ypatch (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: Stefka Bulgaria another time tried to GAME us. Please see the timeline:
  • 15 August 2019: Removal of materials regarding the nuclear scientists by Stefka Bulgaria
  • 15 August 2019: Revert by me
  • 28 September 2019: Removal of the content by Stefka Bulgaria, another time without trying to build consensus and substantiate.
  • 28 September 2019: Stefka Bulgaria's violation was reported to you by me.
  • 28 September 2019: Self revert by Stefka Bulgaria after he was reported.
  • Multiple comments exchanged between me, Stefka Bulgaria, Kazemita and Saff V.
  • 23 October 2019: Your suggestion of trying DR.
  • Now, another removal without trying to build consensus or DR.

Please note that, an almost similar filibuster cycle was reported here and your response is here. How many times should be continued? --Mhhossein ^talk 21:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, they didn't just remove it, they replaced it with something else (albeit quote-riddled and poorly-written). You are free to revert back, if you substantiate in detail why you've done so. Then, it will be time to build consensus, preferably by codifying it in a dispute resolution request that is properly closed. El_C 02:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C: So, one may remove something from the long standing version 'n' times since there might be 'n' different phrases which can replace the old version? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

References

More appropriate place for this

First one

At first, It would be better to give reasons when you are going to move the content from one section to another, just writing "More appropriate place for this" is n't enough! In the second step, @Stefka Bulgaria: can you explain by detail why did you move material from "Removal of the designation" section to "Iran's nuclear program"? As it was brought in the source ,The Obama administration lifted the MEK’s designation as a terrorist group in 2012, citing what it said was the group’s “public renunciation of violence, the absence of confirmed acts of terrorism by the MEK for more than a decade, and their cooperation in the peaceful closure of Camp Ashraf, their historic paramilitary base.” A State Department spokesman at the time said Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran. The moved sentence by you definitely relates to "Removal of the designation" section, following MEK delisting and give an end to its terroristic behavior, the source mentions the assassination of nuclear scientists!Saff V. (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

A section discussing a particular event should include all the information concerning that particular event. So if there is a section talking about the allegations concerning nuclear scientists, we should have all the relevant information concerning nuclear scientists in that section (and not spread out repeatedly throughout the article). I moved information about nuclear scientists to the section about "Iran's nuclear programme" because it matched the topic of that section. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Second one

At first, the material was moved from "Ties to foreign and non-state actors" section to "Iran's nuclear programme in this edit by this edit summary "More appropriate place for this" which is not enough to substantiate it? After that, the moved material was picked up by this edit summary "Removing repeated info (these sources are quoting NBC news)" while sources don't support the new sentence NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials,...

• nationalinterest says that According to a report by Richard Engel and Robert Windrem, the assassinations have been the joint work of Israel and the Iranian cult-cum-terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq. there is anything about U.S. officials!
• independent says that A well-sourced and convincing investigation last year by NBC News in the US concluded that "deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel's secret service"....Richard Engel and Robert Windrem of NBC quote Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Iran's spiritual leader Ali Khamenei, ...
• nbcnews says that Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.
• haaretz says that On Thursday, U.S. officials speaking to NBC news claimed that Mossad agents were training members of the dissident terror group People’s Mujahedin of Iran in order assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists, adding that the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama was aware of the operation, but had no direct link to them. where is the claim of Richard Engel and Robert Windrem?!

So that I believe that this edit is not accurate and need to be reverted, the main sentences are more clear!Saff V. (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

As explained in my post above, the aim is to have each relevant section discuss its topic, and not have the same topic spread out repeatedly throughout the article (avoiding repetition in the article seems to be something yourself and Mhhossein have said to be in favor of in the past). We should discuss each topic in its relevant section in as much detail as RSs offer, and that information doesn't need to be repeated in other sections unless there is a particular reason why. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

They are not repeated, see that, we had in the article:

• In 2012, U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, stated that MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.
• Several commentators including Richard Engel and Robert Windrem suggested that the assassinations have been the joint work of Israel and the then Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed group MEK.

but you merged them in to:

• 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.

It is n't supported by sources, for instance, How do you prove that Several commentators including Richard Engel and Robert Windrem are involved with the NBC News Report? There is no mention of NBC News Report in this sentence (Several commentators including Richard Engel and Robert Windrem suggested that the assassinations have been the joint work of Israel and the then Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed group MEK.) as well as nationalinterestsays. So, for this reason, please check the above sources again carefully, your edit is not correct!Saff V. (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? Are you saying we should remove "several commentators" from that sentence since there aren't any other "commentators" (besides Richard Engel and Robert Windrem) making this claim? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"several commentators" was removed by you and I don't know why. I just say that "several commentators" has nothing to do with NBC News report, for instans {{tq|Israeli commentators have confirmed the MEK-Israeli connection. There is two sorts of content, one, according to NBC News,U.S. officials report the MEK-Israeli connection for assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, second is Several commentators including Richard Engel and Robert Windrem claimes which has nothing to do with NBC News!Saff V. (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Saff V., that source you provided also refers to the NBC article, including Richard Engel and Robert Windrem quoting Mohammad Javad Larijani. So this all goes back to a single source: the NBC article (if we're talking about the allegations concerning the killing of nuclear scientists, which is the text we we're addressing). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You wrote that 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists." So please answer my question, How does support haaretz the above text? There is anything about "Richard Engel and Robert Windrem" in it (try ctrl +F), while the removed sentence by you, (Several commentators including Richard Engel and Robert Windrem suggested that the assassinations have been the joint work of Israel and the then Foreign Terrorist Organization-listed group MEK.) is supported by it!Saff V. (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Saff V., I'm having difficulties understanding you. the quote "2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. is not supported by the Haaretz source, but by the NBC source. If that's not what you're asking, then what I said to you earlier in this TP discussion is that "the aim is to have each relevant section discuss its topic, and not have the same topic spread out repeatedly throughout the article (avoiding repetition in the article seems to be something yourself and Mhhossein have said to be in favor of in the past). We should discuss each topic in its relevant section in as much detail as RSs offer, and that information doesn't need to be repeated in other sections unless there is a particular reason why." In other words, it was all moved to the section about nuclear scientists, and all the information that is available about nuclear scientists is there. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I just want to know why "several commentators" were removed?Saff V. (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

More Gaming

@El C: Would you please take a look at this? I see a pattern here by Stefka Bulgaria. He repeats his old edits which have faced objections, without adding something new to previous discussions. Recently, Stefka Bulgaria has removed something which we have already discussed and no consensus was formed at the time (specially see my comments here and here). Stefka Bulgaria has made no new objections. Can you remember the former case where you responded that he had to be "mindful of past discussions" and "coming across as saying: I propose that we do X changes (again) — that is a problem that, if repeated, can be viewed as tendentious editing, which may result in sanctions"? In summary, please see Stefka Bulgaria's comment on 9 October 2019 and compare it with his comment on 21 January 2020 followed by removal of content, despite objections. His newer comment is even more concise, instead of covering the previous discussions! --Mhhossein ^talk 09:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I first substantiated this edit on January 12, and then on January 21 I confirmed that there hadn't been a response to my proposal, and was going ahead with the edit based on WP:SILENCE. Here's the sequence of events:

On January 12, 2020 I substantiated that edit in the TP discussion Repeated information about nuclear scientists", where I wrote:

• I found this (the later part of this sentence about nuclear scientists) to be repeated information about the allegations made against the MEK regarding Iranian nuclear scientists, which is something that's already covered in the article:
• "According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, the MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years", although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel."[393]
• I propose removing (the part about nuclear scientists at least) based on that it's repeated information."

That post went unanswered, so on January 21 2020, I wrote:

• It's been well over a week and nobody has replied to this, so removing (per WP:SILENCE) the part that says "although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel" since that is already in the article in the "Iran's nuclear programme" section:

• "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.[208][209][210] Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents motivated by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations.[211][208] Also a State Department spokesman reported that "Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran."[212]

• "On 9 February 2012, Iran senior officer Mohammad-Javad Larijani alleged to NBC news that “MOSSAD and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists,” although the claim has never been backed up with evidence."[382]

Mhhossein keeps accusing me of GAMING when what I've been doing is substantiate my edits in the Talk page, and editing when these have gone answered for over a week. These continuing accusations come across as WP:HARRASMENT. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: The very fact that Stefka Bulgaria, despite being reminded, is still insisting on ignoring our previous discussions on the disputed content, is indicating he has not got the point behind your warning. @Stefka Bulgaria: Bludgeoning the process, which you already did by repeating the whole of your comments over and over, does not distract the eyes from your recent violation. What's the point behind repeating those comments verbatim? You can simply put the diffs! Also, just imagine, there are only 4 mins between your latest comment (which YOU call substantiation) and removal of the content. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Absurd. On 12 January 2020 I presented a reason why the text should be removed. I waited for over a week for a response, but received none, so on January 21 I confirmed I'd be going ahead with the edit based on WP:SILENCE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

October 2019 was not that long ago, so counting on a week of SILENCE while there are multiple proposals pending is not that reasonable, actually. What should have been done is what I suggested back then — open a dispute resolution request (probably an RfC) so as to codify the consensus about this, or lack thereof, once and for all. Is this a repetition or a reiteration? Find out by following the steps outlined in the dispute resolution page. El_C 16:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: what would have been helpful here, at least for me, is some kind of explanation from Mhhossein that outlines how the removed text isn't repeated already in the article (which is what I set out to outline here). That could have been a good step forward here... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Again, whether it is a repetition or a reiteration is something you two probably should not determine on your own. El_C 16:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

All RfCs in the last year or so here have concluded in no consensus. I also took this to a dispute resolution last year, and Mhhossein refused to comment there as well. IMHO, refusing to engage or lack of consensus should not determine the editing process. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

No one is obliged to participate, in anything. Everything here is voluntary. Everyone is obliged to adhere to the determined consensus, or lack thereof. Anyway, I don't know what to tell you — if there's a no consensus closure result for a proposal, then that's just the way it is. There's no way around that that I know of. But after a long while, a proposal may be resubmitted, because consensus can change. El_C 17:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of avoiding getting reported by Mhhossein again, how long should I wait before re-submitting a previous proposal that concluded in no consensus? (also, for the record, this last TP discussion I opened about this went unanswered for 9 days). Thanks, El_C. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, you had a lot of pending proposals, which may overwhelm participants. The wait time, like determining longstanding text, is something that should be decided by local consensus. Myself, I would propose something between six months and a year. Say, 9 months. Let's see what other editors think about that. El_C 17:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The only thing Stefka Bulgaria needs to do is to stop this sort of behavior. As for this case, I had elaborated my points (here and here) back in October 2019. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

He is not allowed to simply GAME us anymore. @El_C: This is not the first, or second time he is doing this. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't tell if Mhhossein is agreeing to the 9 months; but I am. I won't re-open a previous discussion that ended in no consensus that was closed less than 9 months ago. As for the WP:SILENCE clause, that's still a bit unclear since I thought 7 days without responding was an internal agreement we were abiding to. I'll consult El_C next time just to be sure. Bless. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, you should probably find a less lenient admin if you wish for Talk page restrictions to be applied as aggressively. I allow for wide latitude when it comes to talk page collaboration — within reason, of course (see above). El_C 20:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: sorry for posting in the wrong section before. I don't see a substantiated reason for Mhhossein's revert back in October either. Is this ok? Shouldn't they at least be clear here about what their objection is? (sorry for insisting, it's just that the axe fell on me because of this, and equal scrutiny would be good). Thank you. Ypatch (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Mhhossein, indeed, maybe briefly reiterate what your objection was, because who can really remember what was said back in October. El_C 23:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ypatch: If you or Stefka Bulgaria had really followed the thread here, you would see this discussion being mentioned. Also, some of my previous comments ([27], here and here) are showing what my objection had been. Ariane M. Tabatabai should not be quoted selectively for pushing a certain pro-MEK POV. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• @El C: In response to your comment: Having a "wide lattitude" is certainly helpful but the question is how many times he can repeat the same mistake? Pretty much the same thing happened in less than a month after your warning. Your warnings were not unprecedented; see [28] and [29] both your warnings to him. Please review this thread once again; I clearly provided the link to our previous discussion and still he pretended otherwise. He knew he had acted against your warning so he had to pretend there had not been any previous objections against his recent edits. This behavior is highly disrespectful and I feel offended seeing t happening from time to time. How many times exactly is he allowed to repeat this? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Mhhossein's reason for reverting, according to them, is that the edit pushes "a certain pro-MEK POV". This does not address the issue (which is more to do with the incident already being mentioned twice in the article). Is Mhhossein's response substantiated here? Ypatch (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

It isn't to my satisfaction. El_C 20:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

That's what I remember: no substantiation before, and no substantiation now. Mhhossein, Instead of all this fuzzing, how about addressing what's being asked, particularly about the time frame required for a previous discussion to be brought up again? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Could I have your response to my previous comment El_C?

@Ypatch You are misquoting me here and you (you and Stefka Bulgaria) are attempting to do the same thing with Ariane M. Tabatabai. If you selectively remove some portions of his comment saying MEK is suspected of being involved in the assassinations, and leave the portion of the comment saying MEK's ability to do such operations has decreased, you have in fact misquoted Tabatabai to preserve a certain POV. So, "Don't misquote him by removing a portion of his important words." --Mhhossein ^talk 20:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that 9 months it's too long. I think it should be 6 months for discussions that haven't reached consensus, and 12 for any that have. Ypatch (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: If, then, Mhhossein's revert wasn't substantiated (neither back in October or now), shouldn't they get some kind of sanction for reverting without consensus or proper substantiation, like some of us have been in the past? Mhhossein also just made another revert based on a self-made consensus without discussing it with anyone. Ypatch (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

[N]either back in October or now (bold is me emphasis) — possibly. But, indeed, that's what we're missing: a summary of what was said in October to substantiate the revert, then. Without which, indeed, this is could be seen as a violation which, in turn, may be subject to sanctions. Again, Longstanding text and per talk are not magic words. El_C 14:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

There's something bizarre happening here. I have provided my substantiation multiple times (BOTH now and back in October 2019): If you selectively remove some portions of Tabatabei's comment, which says MEK is suspected of being involved in the assassinations, and leave the portion of the comment, which says MEK's ability to do such operations has decreased, you have in fact misquoted Tabatabai to preserve a certain POV. So, "Don't misquote him by removing a portion of his important words." Back in October, I also substantiated my objection in a similar manner. How about sanctioning those who failed to gain consensus for removal of a well sourced content back in October and are repeating the same behavior now without bringing something new as substantiation? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Mhhossein's response remains the same; it does not address the issue why that part of the quote was removed (as said multiple times, it was removed because that information about nuclear scientists is repeated twice in the article). Mhhossein's revert doesn't address the repetition and is a revert based on self-made consensus, and some of us have been blocked for the same type of reverts in the past. Ypatch (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, they're saying there has been misquoting involved. I don't understand exactly why, but it is progress, I suppose. Some more to go, though, Mhhossein. That is simply too terse. El_C 16:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Part of the quote was removed because that information was already repeated in the article. There wasn't any "misquoting". Ypatch (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Misquoting someone is a great deal. Removal of the content in a selective manner, as it was done to Tabatabei's comment, can lead to POV. Just compare the two versions. The current one:

"According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, the MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years", although it is "suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel."

The one with selective removal of content:

"According to Ariane M. Tabatabai, the MEK's "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years."

I have looked into the source and believe we may have to do more modifications to the text. This is what the source says exactly:

"Most recently, the group was suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel, until the 2015 nuclear deal.17 The group’s capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years – especially since the 2003 Iraq war, with the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, who provided it with financial and logistical support 18– but it continues to be one of the main terrorist groups identified as a threat by Tehran."

It is clear the text says the group, even after overthrow of Saddam, continued to be a terrorist group which was "identified as a threat by Tehran." --Mhhossein ^talk 06:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ypatch, In fact, you had to provide fair reasons for doing such challenging edit into the lead, you changed the long-standing version without making a consequence and didn't give time to see other users responses.Saff V. (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: The removal of that text is not misquoting the author because none of the author's words were altered in any way. Mhhossein's responses sidestep the question and he never addresses the actual reason why that text was removed (its repetition throughout the article, which is a reason Mhhossein has used to remove other text from the article).

This is the part of the quote that I had removed: ("[the MEK is] suspected of having carried out attacks against Iranian nuclear scientists, with alleged support from Israel.") As explained in this TP, the reason I removed it was that this information is already repeated in the article:

• "In 2012, NBC News' Richard Engel and Robert Windrem published a report quoting U.S. officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity, that the MEK was being financed, trained, and armed by Israel's secret service to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists.[208][209][210] Former CIA case officer in the Middle East, Robert Baer argued that MEK agents motivated by Israel were the only plausible perpetrators for such assassinations.[211][208] Also a State Department spokesman reported that "Washington did not claim the exile group was involved in the assassination of scientists in Iran."[212]

• "On 9 February 2012, Iran senior officer Mohammad-Javad Larijani alleged to NBC news that “MOSSAD and the MEK were jointly responsible for the targeted killing of Iranian scientists,” although the claim has never been backed up with evidence."[382]

The issue with repetition should have been at least addressed prior to going ahead on their own and reverting that edit. You've blocked various editors already here for jumping the gun this way. Similarly, Mhhossein's latest edit to the article, where he reverts an edit that had been discussed here for weeks without anyone's consensus . Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It is actually the reverse, in this case you tried to push your edit out of process and you failed to do this. Wasn't the admin tolerate, you could have been blocked multiple times. Anyway, I have explained my point (although I have done it over and over). According to the source text, which I provided here, Tabatabai's comment, i.e. "capabilities to conduct terrorist attacks may have decreased in recent years," should not be used out of context. Tabatabai is infact discussing the MEK's ability for carrying out terrorist attacks in the context of the assassination of the Iranian nuclear scientists. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Can you please read Mhhossein's response? Is it substantiated? How about their last revert? Is that allowed without consensus? (the same scrutiny that was placed on my edits when I was blocked would be fair). Ypatch (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but once again, SharabSalam makes me less inclined to participate in the same articles as they do — which does not, however, precludes me acting as an uninvolved admin with regards to him, if need be. So, I'm taking a step back, for now. Good luck. El_C 18:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened, but I don't think it's right to be intimidated so that one ceases to participate in certain articles (a familiar sensation I've often felt here). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@El C: Hey, We need you here. I am not going to repeat how your presence made this article unsafe for those who were edit warring the page. There had been a real improvement here. So, please be here. @Ypatch: instead of downgrading an admin by repeatedly asking him for permission or like, you are advised to say why you think my objections are not substantiated. You know, every thing goes by discussion and substantiation. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Mhhossein should have been sanctioned for reverting without substantiation or consensus, like some of us have in the past. Ypatch (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I also think that waiting nine months to talk again about old discussions is too long. Maybe 6 months like Ypatch said? Other ideas? Barca (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)